12-19-2008, 03:27 AM
Wags wrote:
[quote=mattkime]
>>Lets set aside the argument over belief
ug, i'm probably over analyzing your words but i really don't like it when people talk about the "belief" of global warming in order to equate it with religious belief. the conclusion that global warming is real is based on the scientific interpretation of physical evidence. religious beliefs are not contingent on such evidence.
I totally agree with you, that's why I italicized the word. I was going to discuss the difference between a belief and a scientific theory but it seemed like it deserved a separate thread. Its sort of like how the religious zealots try to reject evolution because, well its only a theory. Sure, but its a scientific theory that has a preponderance of evidence to support it and none to refute it, it is predictive and testable. Evolution is a theory much like gravity is a theory. Global warming is that type of theory although not yet as well understood due to the complexity of weather systems.
Global warming is both a belief system and a scientific theory. There is a lot more uncertainty in the scientific theory then the belief system acknowledges. Mattkime and I had this disagreement last week here.
The arctic is a good example. It is not clear that any recent warming in the arctic has been "caused" by anthropomorphic global warming. Cyclical shifts in water currents trends in the pacific are also likely to be involved. Also, there are a lot of gaps in the data on arctic temperature, since it is not monitored that systemically, and the data set is not nearly as old or as complete as for other regions. Melting ice suggests an increase in temps, but I don't know if we have actual valid measurements of increased temps over a time scale relevant to AGW. The trends in Antarctica have also not been consistent with warming there.